Saturday, October 25, 2008

Philip Berg's lawsuit challenging Illinois Sen. Barack Obama's constitutional eligibility to serve as president of the United States [due to questions about his citizenship] ha[s] been dismissed by the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick on grounds that the Philadelphia attorney and former Deputy Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania lacked standing. . . .

[A] plaintiff wishing to have standing to sue must show (1) a particularized injury-in-fact, (2) evidence showing that that the party being sued actually caused the plaintiff’s particularized injury-in-fact, and (3) that adjudication of the matter would actually provide redress. . . .

[M]uch of Berg’s basis for injury-in-fact could be considered threatened injury–he felt that the country was at risk for “voter disenfranchisement” and that America was certainly headed for a “constitutional crisis”--and, while threatened injury can certainly be injury enough to satisfy the injury-in-fact element, such satisfaction depends upon the threat being perceived by the judge as being not too creative, speculative or remote. . . .

The harm cited by Berg, Surrick wrote, “is too vague and its effects too attenuated to confer standing on any and all voters.”

So, who does have standing? According to the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick, that's completely up to Congress to decide.

If, through the political process, Congress determines that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitution’s eligibility requirements for the Presidency, then it is free to pass laws conferring standing on individuals like Plaintiff. Until that time, voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that Plaintiff attempts to bring in the Amended Complaint.

Berg replied: "While the procedural evasions may be proper, it only makes me believe more that we were correct in the first place, that Obama does not have the documentation we've requested."

[Berg] says that he is learning more about [Obama] with each passing day. For example, regardless of whether it could be attached to the proceeding as it goes through the appellate process, Berg said, he is in possession of a native-language audiotape of Sarah Obama, Barack Obama's paternal grandmother, stating on the day of the last presidential debate that her famous grandson was indeed born in Kenya, and that she was present in the hospital for his birth.

"The tape is in the native language there," Berg said. "I will release it as soon as translation is confirmed by affidavit, and we are waiting on affidavits from contacts over here and in Kenya."

I am totally disappointed by Judge Surrick's decision and, for all citizens of the United States, I am immediately appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court.

This is a question of who has standing to uphold our Constitution. If I don't have standing, if you don't have standing, if your neighbor doesn't have standing to question the eligibility of an individual to be President of the United States - the Commander-in-Chief, the most powerful person in the world - then who does?

So, anyone can just claim to be eligible for congress or the presidency without having their legal status, age or citizenship questioned.

According to Judge Surrick, we the people have no right to police the eligibility requirements under the U.S. Constitution.

What happened to ‘...Government of the people, by the people, for the people,...’ Abraham Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address 1863.

We must legally prevent Obama, the unqualified candidate, from taking the Office of the Presidency of the United States.

I am most fascinated by the commentary that comes after the America's Right article, comments like these:

[O]n the issue of standing, as a Hillary Clinton supporter, Berg has likely contributed both time and treasure to her campaign. Both his time and treasure are now forfeit, due to the fraudulent actions of both Barack Obama and the DNC. You now have: (From the FEC motion)(1) an injury-in-fact, (2) a causal connection between the injury and the challenged conduct of the defendant (traceability), and (3) a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision of the court ...

I can see why the judge would determine Berg’s lack of standing, per this take-away paragraph:

If, through the political process, Congress determines that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitution’s eligibility requirements for the Presidency, then it is free to pass laws conferring standing on individuals like Plaintiff. Until that time, voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that Plaintiff attempts to bring in the Amended Complaint.

In other words, what the judge is saying is that there is no mechanism [yet] by which a citizen, voter or anyone else can directly challenge a presidential candidate’s eligibility; this is a responsibility that is currently left up to the Legislative branch, i.e.: Congress.

I actually agree with this, and believe that for the judge to have ruled otherwise would constitute “legislating from the bench,” regardless of how beneficial such “legislation” would be.

Previously, back in the 1800’s, my understanding is that Martin van Buren was challenged on his eligibility for POTUS [President of the US] because he was apparently born in a US territory. Obviously, he prevailed.

Berg is planning on appealing to the . . . SCOTUS [Supreme Court of the US]. While Berg has every right to pursue this course of action, I think he would be better served — and may be doing this anyway — helping other citizens across the several States in bringing up suits against respective SOSs [Secretaries of State] to determine eligibility.

How would this be better? A few reasons:

* Each State’s Secretary of State’s role is to specifically confirm the eligibility of all candidates for all offices

* Since the US doesn’t have federal elections in the truest sense of the word (the US has a “national” election in which all States happen to vote on the same date), one could theoretically push this concept forward with less encumbrances at the State level

* Each State has its own laws in how the SOS is to be held accountable, so, in theory, it may be better defined exactly how to challenge a respective SOS

Lawsuits in the several States would probably do well to only go after the SOS and not Obama/DNC directly, as the real issue is eligibility and not one of political expediency

Nevertheless, the election isn’t over yet. I really don’t think that this issue is going to be resolved (as much as it’s a fascinating issue to observe) by November 4, 2008.

And now, having given you this much commentary, I should note I just discovered a thoughtful, well-researched, dispassionate website dedicated to hunting down the truth concerning Berg's allegations against Obama.

Check out What's Your Evidence?. Even without the technical finding about "no standing," I have to agree with the blogger who is doing the yeoman's work of analyzing the data: in all but the most minute and irrelevant details, Berg's suit lacks merit: he produces little if any evidence for his allegations, and when we can find evidence, it is either weak, at best, or detrimental to his case.

Philip Berg's lawsuit challenging Illinois Sen. Barack Obama's constitutional eligibility to serve as president of the United States [due to questions about his citizenship] ha[s] been dismissed by the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick on grounds that the Philadelphia attorney and former Deputy Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania lacked standing. . . .

[A] plaintiff wishing to have standing to sue must show (1) a particularized injury-in-fact, (2) evidence showing that that the party being sued actually caused the plaintiff’s particularized injury-in-fact, and (3) that adjudication of the matter would actually provide redress. . . .

[M]uch of Berg’s basis for injury-in-fact could be considered threatened injury–he felt that the country was at risk for “voter disenfranchisement” and that America was certainly headed for a “constitutional crisis”--and, while threatened injury can certainly be injury enough to satisfy the injury-in-fact element, such satisfaction depends upon the threat being perceived by the judge as being not too creative, speculative or remote. . . .

The harm cited by Berg, Surrick wrote, “is too vague and its effects too attenuated to confer standing on any and all voters.”

So, who does have standing? According to the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick, that's completely up to Congress to decide.

If, through the political process, Congress determines that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitution’s eligibility requirements for the Presidency, then it is free to pass laws conferring standing on individuals like Plaintiff. Until that time, voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that Plaintiff attempts to bring in the Amended Complaint.

Berg replied: "While the procedural evasions may be proper, it only makes me believe more that we were correct in the first place, that Obama does not have the documentation we've requested."

[Berg] says that he is learning more about [Obama] with each passing day. For example, regardless of whether it could be attached to the proceeding as it goes through the appellate process, Berg said, he is in possession of a native-language audiotape of Sarah Obama, Barack Obama's paternal grandmother, stating on the day of the last presidential debate that her famous grandson was indeed born in Kenya, and that she was present in the hospital for his birth.

"The tape is in the native language there," Berg said. "I will release it as soon as translation is confirmed by affidavit, and we are waiting on affidavits from contacts over here and in Kenya."

I am totally disappointed by Judge Surrick's decision and, for all citizens of the United States, I am immediately appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court.

This is a question of who has standing to uphold our Constitution. If I don't have standing, if you don't have standing, if your neighbor doesn't have standing to question the eligibility of an individual to be President of the United States - the Commander-in-Chief, the most powerful person in the world - then who does?

So, anyone can just claim to be eligible for congress or the presidency without having their legal status, age or citizenship questioned.

According to Judge Surrick, we the people have no right to police the eligibility requirements under the U.S. Constitution.

What happened to ‘...Government of the people, by the people, for the people,...’ Abraham Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address 1863.

We must legally prevent Obama, the unqualified candidate, from taking the Office of the Presidency of the United States.

I am most fascinated by the commentary that comes after the America's Right article, comments like these:

[O]n the issue of standing, as a Hillary Clinton supporter, Berg has likely contributed both time and treasure to her campaign. Both his time and treasure are now forfeit, due to the fraudulent actions of both Barack Obama and the DNC. You now have: (From the FEC motion)(1) an injury-in-fact, (2) a causal connection between the injury and the challenged conduct of the defendant (traceability), and (3) a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision of the court ...

I can see why the judge would determine Berg’s lack of standing, per this take-away paragraph:

If, through the political process, Congress determines that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitution’s eligibility requirements for the Presidency, then it is free to pass laws conferring standing on individuals like Plaintiff. Until that time, voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that Plaintiff attempts to bring in the Amended Complaint.

In other words, what the judge is saying is that there is no mechanism [yet] by which a citizen, voter or anyone else can directly challenge a presidential candidate’s eligibility; this is a responsibility that is currently left up to the Legislative branch, i.e.: Congress.

I actually agree with this, and believe that for the judge to have ruled otherwise would constitute “legislating from the bench,” regardless of how beneficial such “legislation” would be.

Previously, back in the 1800’s, my understanding is that Martin van Buren was challenged on his eligibility for POTUS [President of the US] because he was apparently born in a US territory. Obviously, he prevailed.

Berg is planning on appealing to the . . . SCOTUS [Supreme Court of the US]. While Berg has every right to pursue this course of action, I think he would be better served — and may be doing this anyway — helping other citizens across the several States in bringing up suits against respective SOSs [Secretaries of State] to determine eligibility.

How would this be better? A few reasons:

* Each State’s Secretary of State’s role is to specifically confirm the eligibility of all candidates for all offices

* Since the US doesn’t have federal elections in the truest sense of the word (the US has a “national” election in which all States happen to vote on the same date), one could theoretically push this concept forward with less encumbrances at the State level

* Each State has its own laws in how the SOS is to be held accountable, so, in theory, it may be better defined exactly how to challenge a respective SOS

Lawsuits in the several States would probably do well to only go after the SOS and not Obama/DNC directly, as the real issue is eligibility and not one of political expediency

Nevertheless, the election isn’t over yet. I really don’t think that this issue is going to be resolved (as much as it’s a fascinating issue to observe) by November 4, 2008.

And now, having given you this much commentary, I should note I just discovered a thoughtful, well-researched, dispassionate website dedicated to hunting down the truth concerning Berg's allegations against Obama.

Check out What's Your Evidence?. Even without the technical finding about "no standing," I have to agree with the blogger who is doing the yeoman's work of analyzing the data: in all but the most minute and irrelevant details, Berg's suit lacks merit: he produces little if any evidence for his allegations, and when we can find evidence, it is either weak, at best, or detrimental to his case.